"culture" against "civilization." My remarks about Ruskin derive from Williams, as well as from a reading of The Two Paths (1859), Unto this Last (1862), and Sesame and Lilies (1871). On French intellectuals' contempt for provincial life, see César Grana, Modernity and Its Discontents (1964). The brief references to Marx and Engels, at this point in my argument, are to The Communist Manifesto (1848), Engels's Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 (1845), and Marx's essay "The British Rule in India" (1853). For Maine, see George Feaver, From Status to Contract: A Biography of Sir Henry Maine (1969). For the origins of sociology in the conservative reaction against the Enlightenment, see Robert Nisbet, The Sociological Tradition (1966); Sheldon Wolin, Politics and Vision (1960); and Mack Walker, German Home Towns (1971), the last of which explains, among other things, how the concept of society developed, in Germany, in opposition to that of the state.

My analysis of Ferdinand Tönnies rests on Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887), translated by Charles Loomis as Community and Society (1957), and on the useful collection of his other writings edited by Werner J. Cahnman and Rudolf Heberle, Ferdinand Toennies on Sociology (1971). On the moral ambivalence of the sociological tradition and the structure of historical necessity, the relevant texts are Durkheim's Professional Ethics and Civic Morals (1957), Weber's more familiar pair of essays "Science as a Vocation" and "Politics as a Vocation" (both published in I9I9); Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents (1930) and The Future of an Illusion (1928); Robert Redfield's The Primitive World and Its Transformations (1953); George Simmel's essay "The Metropolis and Mental Life" (1903); Louis Wirth's imitation "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology 44 (1938): I-24; and various works by Marx, including a couple of minor pieces quoted in Jon Elster's admirable study Making Sense of Marx (1985). For interpretations of economic development contrary to that of Marx (who insists on the inevitable supersession of small-scale production), see Kins Collins, "Marx on the English Agricultural Revolution," History and Theory 6 (1967): 351-81; J. D. Chambers and G. E. Mingay, The Agricultural Revolution (1966); and Charles Sabel and Jonathan Zeitlin, "Historical Alternatives to Mass Production," Past and Present, no. 108 (Aug. 1985): 133-76. This last contains a more general attack on historical determinism, as does Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Social Theory: Its Situation and Its Task (1987). On Simmel, see Thomas Bender, Community and Social Change (1978). On "conservative modernization," see Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966). On the inverse relation between industrialization and democracy, see Lawrence Goodwyn, "Organizing Democracy," Democracy I (Jan. 1981): 41-60.

The literature on modernization is enormous; my selection includes Edward Shils, "Political Developments in New States," Comparative Studies in Society and History 2 (1960): 265-92, 379-411; S. N. Eisenstadt, Modernization: Protest and Change (1966) and "Modernization: Growth and Diversity," India Quarterly 20 (1964): 17‐ 42; C. E. Black, The Dynamics of Modernization (1966); Alex Inkeles, "Making Men Modern," AmericanJournal of Sociology 75 (1969): 208-25; Reinhard Bendix, "Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered," Comparative Studies in Society and Histosy 9

-539-